Chronological History of the search for Kadesh
Kadesh is located at ancient El Beidha in
Petra
2000 BC - 2013 ADIndiana: "Balloq's medallion only had
writing on one side? You sure about that?"
Sallah: "Positive!"
Indiana: "Balloq's staff is too long. Indiana."
Both: "They're digging in the wrong place!"

"For 100 years they have been digging for Kadesh in the
wrong place"

Chronological
history of the search for Kadesh Barnea:

Introduction:

1.The Hebrews left Egypt in 1440 BC and spent 38 years at Kadesh and then
entered the promised land in 1406 BC.

2.Many people are unaware that historically, Kadesh was thought to be at
Petra from 1440 BC - 1831AD.

3.Our proposed Exodus Route:

The Scriptures as a whole teach, along with geographic
analysis, that the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea on the Gulf of Aqaba,
specifically at the Straits
of Tiran.The scriptures teach that Mount Sinai is somewhere in north
Saudi Arabia. (History leads us to suggest Mt. Lawz as the most
likely place.)The scriptures teach that Kadesh Barnea is
transjordan, somewhere south of the Dead Sea in modern Jordan. (History and
archeology leads us to suggest Kadesh is located in Petra area, just 5
km north of Petra at Beidha.)

4.The search for Kadesh Barnea has been misguided. This reminds us of that
classic moment in the Indiana Jones movie, "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
where the Germans were "digging in the wrong place" for the Ark
because the did not have all the information. For the last 100 years,
archeologists were "digging in the wrong place" to find Kadesh.
Kadesh, in fact, is not located anywhere near the place almost all Bible maps
say it is (ei. Qudeirat)
but 100 km east at or near Petra.

A. Summarized overview of the history of Kadesh:

For 3800
years Kadesh Barnea was located at Petra. (2000 BC - 1831AD)

2000 BC: Abraham at En-mishpat: En-mishpat means
"Spring of Judgement" that was renamed Kadesh by the Hebrews during
the Exodus. Genesis 14:7 says: "Then they turned back and came to
En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and conquered all the country of the Amalekites,
and also the Amorites, who lived in Hazazon-tamar."

350 BC - 106 AD: Nabateans at Petra The Nabateans
enlarged and enhanced the tomb city of the Hebrews. Everything we see today in
Petra was the work of the Nabateans. Like Pharaoh in Egypt, the Nabateans
removed all traces of the Hebrews in the multi coloured sandstone. Petra is a
second use of the Hebrew Kadesh Barnea.

106 AD: Roman Petra: Arabia. The Romans annexed Petra
and renamed it Arabia. Petra became the capital city of Roman Arabia.

100 AD - 400AD: Petra Josephus,
Eusebius
and Jerome all stated that Kadesh was at Petra.

325 AD: Queen Helena (Constantine's mother) dreams
that Mt. Sinai is located at Mt. Musa in the Modern Sinai.

1821-1881 AD: Arabah Valley. Archeologists started
looking for Kadesh on the western side of the Arabah valley where ever they
found a natural spring. Two such choices were Ein El Weibeh and
Ein Hasb. Of course neither of these could be Kadesh because the western
edge of the Arabah valley was the Territory of Judah.

1881-1916 AD: Ein el Qedeis. The search moved to the Quseima
district and Ein El Qedeis
became the choice the world accepted for Kadesh between 1881 and 1916 AD mainly
because of the deceptive account of Trumbull where he described how Qedeis was
as green, lush and buzzing with wildlife as "New England".

1916 -2004 AD: Ein el Qudeirat. Wooley and Lawrence
arrived and quickly rejected Qedeis as Kadesh and then excavated Ein el Qudeirat
about 6 km north of Qedeis. When they learned that Ein el Qudeirat is the
largest natural water supply in the entire Sinai, they immediately declared
they had found Kadesh Barnea. As they excavated the site, they were unaware
that they were actually digging up a fortress built by Solomon in 950 BC to
protect Judah's southern border, they falsely assumed the building was present
at the time of Moses.

2004 AD - present: A restoration, by the author, of
the true exodus route that the first century Christians believed, including the
location of Mt. Sinai (Jebel Al-Lawz), the crossing point of the Red Sea
(Straits of Tiran) and the location of Kadesh Barnea at Petra. This of course
is not really a discovery, but more of a restoration in harmony with the Bible
and the most ancient history sources combined with modern archeology.

Looking for large natural water supplies. Kadesh has a
spring but with the water table so much lower today in Israel it is likely
dried up. At Kadesh, Israel complained there was not enough water and
Moses had to strike the rock and supply the water by miracle. Woolley and
Lawrence stated that they were looking for a site with a large enough
natural water supply to sustain Israel: "If this second view be
accepted, then it is definitely our opinion that only in the Kossaima
district are to be found enough water and green stuffs to maintain so
large a tribe for so long" (The
Wilderness of Zin, Woolley and Lawrence, 1914-1915 AD) This notion is
entirely misguided since the water supply at Kadesh was miraculous.

Henry Clay Trumbull's deceptive description of Ein El Qedeis
in 1881 AD, had the same effect in archeology as the Piltdown man fraud
had in evolution. For 35 years the world was misled by Trumbull's fraud
until Woolley and Lawrence published the The
Wilderness of Zin in 1916 AD. In the same way Arthur Woodward misled
the world in 1912 AD with his Piltdown man which convinced the world for
over 40 years that evolution was true when in fact the scientific case for
young earth creation is powerful and
convincing.

The assumption that there would be traces of the Hebrews
at Petra. When the Nabateans came to Petra in 350 BC they continued the
Hebrew tradition of using it as a "city for the dead". (One big
grave yard) They greatly enlarged what the Hebrews carved out and carved
out new structures that the Hebrews didn't do. Since the Nabateans were
arch enemies of the Jews they removed any trace of past Hebrew occupation.
This is the same thing that Pharaoh did after Egypt plundered them in 1440
BC. So it is very understandable why we have found any trace of the
Hebrews in Petra, but in Qudeirat, we should have found these traces but
do not.

C. Detailed history of the search for Kadesh Barnea:

2000
- 1440 BC: Abraham at En-mishpat:

En-mishpat means "Spring of Judgement" that was
renamed Kadesh by the Hebrews during the Exodus.

Genesis 14:7 says: "Then they turned back and came to
En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and conquered all the country of the
Amalekites, and also the Amorites, who lived in Hazazon-tamar."

Jerome said: "Gen 14:7: And they returned and came
to the fountain of judgement, that is, to Cades. Because Cades was so
named later on, it is specificied by way of anticipation; and it refers to
a place near Petra, which is called 'The Fountain of Judgement', because
God judged the people there" (Saint Jerome's Hebrew Questions on
Genesis, translated by C. T. R. Hayward, p 46, Gen 14:7, 1995 AD)

1444
- 1406 BC: Hebrews 38 years at Petra

Hebrews spent 38 years at Kadesh Barnea with Moses and
Joshua.

Here Miriam and Aaron and 2.5 million Hebrews died.
Kadesh-Barnea was a sacred "tomb city" associated with death to
the Hebrews. Kadesh was at what became Petra. Kadesh means
"sanctuary". Even in Hebrew culture today, the "Burial
Society" is called the "Chevra Kaddisha" (Chevra = society;
Kaddisha = holy). Therefore Kadesh = Kaddisha = Burial. Jews have always
place extreme importance on burial. Kadesh derives its name as the holy
place they buried their dead for 38 years.

There are archeological traces of the Hebrews at Petra
that predate the Nabateans. While the time scale of these archeologists is
off by a factor of 5x, (2000 BC not 10,000 BC) the facts of archeology
show a Hebrew presence.

"Even before the historical period, however, the Petra region was inhabited by Stone Age people who
exploited its natural vegetation and wildlife. Diana Kirkbride's
pioneering work at Beidha has revealed the presence of an important
Neolithic village from the 7th millennium BC, along with traces of even
earlier Natufian camps from the 9th and 10th millennia BC. Recent surveys
and excavations in the Petra area by a West German team from Tubingen
University, headed by Hans Peter Uerpmann and Hans Georg Gebel, have
discovered a handful of new settlements, seasonally occupied campsites and rock shelters from the same closing
millennia of the Stone Age." (Petra:
a guide to the capital of the Nabataeans, Rami G. Khouri, 1986,
p11-27, p41-44)

350
BC - 106 AD: Nabateans at Petra

The Nabateans enlarged and enhanced the tomb city of the
Hebrews. Everything we see today in Petra was the work of the Nabateans.
Like Pharaoh in Egypt, the Nabateans removed all traces of the Hebrews in
the multi coloured sandstone. Petra is a second use of the Hebrew Kadesh
Barnea.

The treasury and other structures carved out of the
sandstone are all the work of the Nabateans. It is entirely possible that
when the Nabateans arrived, that there was a cave carved out where the
treasury is today, but the Nabateans used this as a beginning point for
the "treasury" we see today.

106
AD: Roman Petra: Arabia.

The Romans annexed Petra and renamed it Arabia.

Petra became the capital city of Roman Arabia.

Josephus
and Eusebius
all refer to Petra at Arabia. The Modern Sinai peninsula was never called
Arabah. Yet Paul said Mt. Sinai was located in the land of Arabah (Gal 4:25)
proving Mt. Sinai could not be located where most people say it is today.

Philo
of Alexandria (50 AD) Philo describes the route to the Red Sea
crossing as "a long and desolate journey through the wilderness,
destitute of any beaten road, at last arrived at the sea which is called
the Red Sea" an "oblique path", "off the main
road", a "pathless track" and a "rough and untrodden
wilderness". Two passages in the Bible describe this "wilderness
before the crossing point": Judges 11:16; Exodus 13:18. Philo
describes it in detail. This not only rules out the Bitter Lakes and a
North Suez crossing point, it also proves Mt. Sinai cannot be in the Sinai
Peninsula. Philo's use of the terms Arab and Arabia, were restricted to
the land east of the Gulf of Aqaba where Jethro and the Ishmaelite lived,
and he never says the Sinai Peninsula is Arabia.

a."Kadea Barne. The desert which extends to (the city of) Petra a
city of Arabia. There Mariam went up and died, and there the doubting Moses
struck the rock to give water to the thirsty people. The tomb of Mariam herself
is pointed out there even now. There also Chodollagomor beat the chiefs of the
Amalakites." (Eusebius, Onomasticon, round brackets are Eusebius')
Footnote #: 580. (Eusebius,
Onomasticon)

b.Kadēa Barnē. Numbers 32:8; K. 112:8; L. 270:4. Textual variant
city of Palestinē (Greek) instead of Arabia. This reflects again the
uncertainty of editorial additions and of the use of Arabia in the Onomasticon
(K. 110:27). Latin combines K. 112:7 and K. 112:8. Some confusion in order of
this and the next three entries. A summary of biblical information from Numbers
21:1, 11; Numbers 27:14 and Genesis 14:7. A tomb tradition is here. No location
is given other than near Petra (K. 142:7). Procopius repeats the entry in 332D
and 1021D. It also is reaffirmed by Jerome in Commentary on Ezekiel
38:23(cf. K. 46:26). In Interpretation of Hebrew Names "Cades, holy
or change" (63); "Cades, alteration or holy" (80);
"Cadesbarne, selected change or changeableness" (80). (Eusebius,
Onomasticon)

d.Barnea (same as Kadesh Barnea): "Barne: This is Cades Barne, on the
desert which extends up to the city of Petra." (Eusebius, Onomasticon, round
brackets are Eusebius') Footnote #: 213. Barnē. Joshua 10:41; K. 46:26; L.
247:74. Identified with the desert stretching south of Petra (K. 142:7) and
more frequently Kadēs Barnē (K. 112:8). (Eusebius,
Onomasticon)

3.Jerome: In 400 AD believed Kadesh was at Petra

a.Jerome wrote: "Gen 14:7: And they returned and came to the
fountain of judgement, that is, to Cades. Because Cades was so named later
on, it is specified by way of anticipation; and it refers to a place near Petra, which is called 'The Fountain of Judgement',
because God judged the people there" (Saint Jerome's Hebrew Questions on
Genesis, translated by C. T. R. Hayward, p 46, Gen 14:7, 1995 AD)

b.Jerome had a copy of the Onomasticon and updated it with his own
comments. Jerome also said In Hebrew Questions "Cades is a place
near Petra called the spring of judgment where God judged the people" (Eusebius,
Onomasticon)

Because of this literary history, the search for Kadesh
began last century at Petra and in the Arabah valley.

325
AD: Helena chooses Mt. Sinai in a dream.

Queen Helena (Constantine's mother) dreams that Mt. Sinai
is located at Mt. Musa in the Modern Sinai.

The fact Helena had to locate Mt. Sinai in a dream proves
it was something new and unknown to the world. In fact Helena is famous
for her random choices in Jerusalem, which were almost always wrong
because they were based on she thought would be a good location for it,
rather than the real location.

This one act by Helena is the cause of all the confusion
in the Exodus route down to this present time. Only when we realize the
evil Helena did in her blind and random choice, do we begin to search for
the real Exodus route.

This location is "canonized" by the Catholic and
Orthodox churches, even though most people are certain it is not the true
Mt. Sinai.

It is clear that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches
are not only no help in the search, they are the greatest barrier to the
discovery of the truth since it would require them to admit one of their
council edicts was wrong.

"The Identification of the Site Kadesh-barnea's actual
site for a long time was subject to scholarly dispute. This is hardly
surprising since many of the geographical terms employed in the Bible,
including most of those connected with the route of the Exodus, had passed
out of currency by late antiquity. Discussion of the site's location,
until the 19th century, was based completely on the diverse literary
sources. In 1807, however, U. J. Seetzen entered the Negev in the course
of his Levantine travels (1854: 1-68), opening this area to modern
exploration. At first the search for Kadesh-barnea
focused on the Arabah, the deep, desolate geological fissure extending
from the south end of the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba. [ie the Arabah valley"
(Excavations
At Kadesh-Barnea: 1976-1978, Ein el-Qudeirat, Rudolph Cohen, 1981 AD)

"The
pioneering explorers of the early 19th century sought Kadesh-barnea in the
Arabah. In 1836, for
example, von Raumer proposed Ain Hasb (Haseva) as a candidate for the site,
while Robinson, in 1838, preferred 'Ain el-Webeh (`En Yahav). (Rudolph
Cohen, Kadesh Barnea: A fortress from the time of the
Judaean Kingdom, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem 1983 AD p7-21)

In 1806-7 Ulrich Jasper Seetzen, (AKA Musa el Hakim) a
Russian Doctor, was first to explore the Negev in recent times but was
more of a Muslim pilgrim than an explorer and contributed little to
Biblical archeology.

In 1838 Edward Robinson chose Ein El Weibeh.
just a few km south of Ein Hasb.

This 1870 AD map shows the Exodus Route with Ein El Weibeh as Kadesh:

Of course neither of these could be Kadesh because the
western edge of the Arabah valley was the Territory of Judah. Kadesh
Barnea cannot be located Ein Hasb
or Ein
El Weibeh or Ein el Qudeirat for the same reason: Kadesh was not
located with in the promised land.

In 1856, Arthur Penrhyn Stanley considered and rejected
Weibeh and stated that Petra was the
location of Kadesh. Stanley concluded with Petra as his choice for Kadesh:
"Is it too much to suppose that this point and Mount Hor were long
regarded as the two sacred spots-of Petra ;
that the scene of the death and sepulture of Aaron was designedly fixed in
view of this, the innermost sanctuary of the Holy
Place of " Kadesh ; " that this sanctity was retained
through the successive changes of Pagan and Christian worship; and that
the pilgrims of the Desert mounted these time-worn steps, and traced their
inscriptions upon the rock, on their way to the only spot, whence they
could see the grave of Aaron ? (Sinai
and Palestine, in connection with their history, Arthur Penrhyn
Stanley, 1856 AD, p84-99)

Stanley lists all the historical connections with Kadesh
at Petra: "It is moreover one of the few facts localized by anything
like an authentic tradition,-in this case preserved by Josephus, the
Talmudists, Eusebius, and Jerome, --that Kadesh was either identical, or
closely connected with Petra." (Sinai
and Palestine, in connection with their history, Arthur Penrhyn
Stanley, 1856 AD, p84-99)

Arthur Penrhyn Stanley rejected Weibeh and stated that
Petra was the location of Kadesh. Of Mt. Hor he said: "It is one of the very few spots connected with the
wanderings of the Israelites, which admits of no reasonable doubt."
While he knew nothing of Nabatean history at Petra, his observations are
correct. Today we know that the Nabateans arrived in Petra about 350 BC
they found a vacant city of Hebrew tombs from the Exodus 1200 years
earlier. Remember 2.5 million Jews died here. The Nabateans greatly
enhanced the location with the elaborate carvings we see today. Being
longstanding enemies of the Hebrews, they removed all traces of the Hebrew
past, just like Pharaoh did in Egypt after Israel left Goshen. "If
there be any ground for this conclusion, Petra assumes a new interest. Its
rock-hewn caves may have served in part for the dwellings, in part for the
graves of the Israelites." (Sinai
and Palestine, in connection with their history, Arthur Penrhyn
Stanley, 1856 AD, p84-99)

1842 AD: Ein Qedeis (Qudeis or Kadis or Kades) was first
discovered in 1842 AD by John Rowlands and
was the first to suggest a connection between the two names
"Kadesh" [Barnea] and "Kadis".

In 1847 AD Rabbi Joseph Schwarz believed Kadesh was located
a few miles north of Qedeis. In 1881 Trumbull referenced this location as
a place he went past to get to Qedeis: "Running
water gurgled under the waving grass. We had seen nothing like it [at
Qedeis] since leaving Wady Fayran" (Kadesh-Barnea,
Ein-Qedeis, Henry Clay Trumbull, 1884) Schwarz said:
"Kadesh-Barnea. No geographer or traveller has hitherto succeeded to
discover a trace of this place, But I believe that, through means of our
own literary treasures, I shall be able to throw some light on this
obscure name, so that it will be possible to fix its position with some
degree of certainty. Our commentators Onkelos, Jonathan, and the Targum
Yerushalmi, all translate Kadesh-Barnea with Rekam Gaya. In this
connexion I have also discovered that the Wady al Arish (see farther down,
under Nachal Mitzrayim), united eastwardly with another Wady, which
the Arabs call Wady Abiat (White Valley), or Wady Gaian. Another Wady, called
by them Wady Bierin, is connected on the southeast with the Wady Gaian. I
have scarcely any doubt but that the name of Gaian is derived from the
ancient Rekam Gaya, and that Bierin is derived from the ancient Barnea;
although the Arabs believe that this name is applied to the Wady because
there are found in it several wells. I therefore
believe that the true position of Kadesh-Barnea is to be found at the
point where the Wadys Gaian [ie. Fayran] and Bierin unite; and this is
about 45 English miles south of Gazza." (Descriptive Geography
and Brief Historical Sketch of Palestine, Rabbi Joseph Schwarz, 1847 AD) Map by Rabbi Joseph Schwarz in
1847 of promised land. You can locate Birein (Schwarz misspelled it
Bierin)on the map
by Nathan Schmidt. It is clear that Rabbi Joseph Schwarz did in fact sway
the thinking of his time towards the Qedeis area for most of the early
explorers referenced him and were aware of where Schwarz placed Kadesh.

In 1872, Johann Heinrich Kurtz accepts Ein
el Qedeis as Kadesh Barnea. See our comments below regarding Keil and
Delitzsch using Kurtz in their commentary of the Bible at Num 12:16:
"In October 1842 (according to the account given by Williams in his
"Holy City" p. 487 sqq.), the two friends made an excursion
beyond Hebron, for the purpose of putting to the
test on the very spot, the accounts which still wavered as to the southern
boundary of Palestine. They went from Arar (Araran, Aroer) towards
the south-west, and ascended from the table-land of Arar, the first
mountain rampart, by which it is bounded on the south. They now found
themselves upon a still higher plateau, which stretches from east to west,
and is called the Wady Rakmah. It answers to the district of the Dhullam
and Saidiyeh on Robinson's map. After going still farther south, they
ascended a second mountain-range, from the summit of which a scene
presented itself to the view of the most magnificent character. (From statements made by Williams elsewhere, the point at
which they now stood was somewhere about the longitude of Beersheba,
twenty miles to the south of this place, near 31° north latitude, 32.5°
longitude. A gigantic mountain towered above them in savage
grandeur, with masses of linked rock, resembling the bastions of some
Cyclopean architecture, the end of which it was impossible for the eye to
reach towards either the west or the east. It extended also a long way
towards the south; and with its rugged, broken, and dazzling masses of
chalk, which reflected the burning rays of the sun, it looked like an
unapproachable furnace, a most fearful desert without the slightest trace
of vegetation. A broad defile, called Wady Murreh, ran at the foot of this
bulwark towards the east, and after a course of several miles, on reaching
the strangely formed mountain of Modder a (Maduran), it divided into two
parts, the southern branch still retaining the same name and running
eastwards to the Arabah, whilst the other was called Wady Fikreh, and ran
in a north-easterly direction to the Dead Sea. " This mountain barrier," says Williams, "
proved to us beyond a doubt, that we were now standing on the southern
boundary of the promised land." They were confirmed in their opinion
by the statement of the guide, that a few hours journey towards the
south-west would bring them to Kadesh. 26. As you pass along the
ordinary road to Hebron, on the western side of the mountainous district
of the Azazimeh, the whole of the mountain-slopes between Jebel Araif and
Jebel Khalil (or the heights of Hebron) appear to form a continued and
unbroken range. But just as the separation of the mountains of the
Amorites from the northern wall of the Azazimat, by the Wady Murreh, is
concealed by the link which connects the two together to the east of
Eboda; so do the projecting ranges of the western wall of the Azazimat
keep out of sight an extended desert plain, which runs for many miles into
the heart of the Azazimat on the other side of the Jebel Moyleh, and into
which several wadys open from the eastern side of the mountain (e.g. the
Wady Kesaimeh, the Wady Muweilih [ Moilahi], and the Wady Eetemat).
"In the remote background, surrounded by the wilderness, there stands
in a state of remarkable isolation the strong rock with its copious
spring, —the spot which still bears the ancient
name of Kadesh (Ain Kudés) (1), and of which Rowlands was the
discoverer." That this is the wilderness of Kadesh, which plays so
important a part in the history of the sojourn of the Israelites, is
apparently no longer open to dispute (3). From the peculiar configuration
of the soil, we may easily understand why this plain, which has a distinct
name of its own (viz., Kadésh), should sometimes be regarded as a part of
the desert of Paran (et-Tih), and at other times as belonging to that of
Zin (the plain of Murreh) (2)." (History
of the old covenant: Johann Heinrich Kurtz,1872 AD, Vol 3, Geological
survey, p225-226)

1878 AD: It was again visited in 1878 AD by F. W. Holland.

1881 AD: Clay Trumbull visited Ein Qedeis in 1881 AD for only one hour, and then wrote an article
in 1884 AD that formally stated that it was Kadesh Barnea. Trumbull
flagrantly lied and exaggerated his account of Ein Qedeis saying, "It
was a marvelous sight! Out from the barren and desolate stretch of the
burning desert-waste, we had come with magical suddenness into an oasis of
verdure and beauty, unlooked for and hardly conceivable in such a region.
A carpet of grass covered the ground. Fig trees, laden with fruit nearly
ripe enough for eating, were along the shelter of the southern hillside.
Shrubs and flowers showed themselves in variety and profusion. Running
water gurgled under the waving grass. We had seen nothing like it since
leaving Wady Fayran ; nor was it equalled
in loveliness of scene by any single bit of landscape, of like extent,
even there. ... There was a New England look to
this oasis, especially in the flowers and grass and weeds; quite unlike
anything we had seen in the peninsula of Sinai. Bees were humming there,
and birds were flitting from tree to tree. Enormous ant hills made of
green grass-seed, instead of sand, were numerous. As we came into the wady
we had started up a rabbit, and had seen larks and quails. It was, in
fact, hard to realize that we were in the desert, or even near it."
(Kadesh-Barnea,
Ein-Qedeis, Henry Clay Trumbull, 1884 AD, p273-275)

William Smith was perhaps the first to be influenced by
Trumbull and wrote this entry in his Bible dictionary: "There has
been much doubt as to the exact site of Kadesh; but Rev. H. Clay Trumbull
of Philadelphia, visiting the spot in 1881, succeeded in rendering almost
certain that the site of Kadesh is Ain Kadis (spelled also Gadis and
Quadis); "the very same name, letter for letter in Arabic and Hebrew,
with the scriptural fountain of Kadesh --the 'holy fountain,' as the name
means-- which gushed forth when Moses smote the rock." (Kadesh,
William Smith's Bible Dictionary, 1884 AD)

Between 1872 - 1891 in their commentary on the Bible at
Num 12:16, Keil and Delitzsch rejected a
transjordan location for Kadesh Barnea on the basis of what Johann
Heinrich Kurtz reported in his History
of the old covenant: ,1872 AD, Vol 3, Geological survey, p225-226.
Keil and Delitzsch said this: "See Kurtz, History of the Old
Covenant, vol. iii. p. 225, (History of the old covenant : Johann Heinrich
Kurtz,1872, vol, 3 p 225) where the current notion, that Kadesh was
situated on the western border of the Arabah, below the Dead Sea, by
either Ain Hasb or Ein El
Weibeh, is successfully refuted." (Keil and Delitzsch, Num 12:16,
footnote) When you read Kurtz's actual evidence that Kadesh Barnea could
not be transjordan, this is what Kurtz said: ""This mountain barrier," says Williams, "proved
to us beyond a doubt, that we were now standing on the southern boundary
of the promised land." They were confirmed in their opinion by the
statement of the guide, that a few hours journey towards the south-west
would bring them to Kadesh." Kurtz also makes several enormous
errors in his account while describing a location of Ein El
Weibeh on the western edge of the Arabah Valley. First he thinks Ein El
Weibeh is at the same longitude as Beersheba. The intersecting line of
the latitude is 30 miles due west of where he is standing. In fact
Beersheeba is 40 miles NW of where he is standing. Then he notes the
Bedouin says Ein
el Qedeis is only 2 hours away, when it is in fact 50 miles away,
likely a 3 day journey, knowing the terrain. Exactly why this unknown
mountain barrier would have any bearing on locating the southern boundary
of the promised land is a mystery, and is purely speculative therefore
worthless. The real reason Keil and Delitzsch and Kurtz believe Kadesh
cannot be transjordan is because the Bedouin guide told them that Ein
el Qedeis preserves the name "Kadesh". This association has
since been utterly rejected. Ein
el Qedeis was rejected in 1914, in favour of Ein
el Qudeirat, located about 6 km NW of Ein
el Qedeis. So in the end, the very association of the name in the mind
of the Bedouin guide proved absolutely nothing. Keil and Delitzsch relied
upon Kurtz's account which was full of errors. This means they have no
good reasons why Kadesh Barnea cannot be transjordan even though the
reasons sounded convincing at the time. This comedy of errors underscores
how little the explorers knew 100 years ago.

In 1896 AD, Kades next visited by Lagrange: In 1910,
Schmidt (who himself visited Kades in 1905 AD) recounts the visit of
Lagrange in 1896 AD: "No wonder that the next visitor, J. Lagrange,
who came from El Natal to 'Ain Kades on the 11th of March, 1896, confesses
that "the deception was so strong, the
disenchantment so deep, that I prevailed on the sheik Suleiman
while shouting that he brought us to the wrong place.) Suleiman swore by
the Prophet that it was 'Ain Kades." There
was the rock with some wasms on it, the water, the channel, an
occasional tuft of grass, and a few wild figs; but no marble, no
vegetation, no color, no life, no oasis of verdure and beauty.
Lagrange's description shows that only fifteen years after Trumbull's
visit, and at the same time of the year, the place presented very much the
same appearance that it did to myself in 1905." (Kadesh
Barnea, Journal of Biblical Literature, Nathan Schmidt, Vol 29, no 1,
1910 AD, p69)

In 1901 AD, Robinson comments on Trumbull's deception
echoing what Lagrange said in 1896. "The last to visit Ein
Qedeis was Rev. H Clay Trumbull, editor of the Sunday-School Times,
who in 1881 rediscovered the site, describing his search for it at length
in his scholarly work entitled Kadesh-Barnea (1884), but whose actual description of the 'Ain (pp. 272 f.),
we regret to say, is more rhetorical than scientific." (Modern
Kadesh or Ein Kadis, George L. Robinson, The Biblical World, Vol. 17,
No. 5., May, 1901AD)

Robinson noted that in spite of Trumbull's deceptive
description of Kades, he and most of the world scholars still viewed Kades
as Kadesh Barnea: "It is pretty generally agreed now that Kadesh of
Scripture is probably the same as Ein
Qedeis, or "Holy Fountain," of the Arabs. This is the
opinion of Rowlands, who first identified it; of Ritter and Schultz ; of
Palmer and Dr. H. Clay Trumbull; of Guthe also" (Modern
Kadesh or Ein Kadis, George L. Robinson, The Biblical World, Vol. 17,
No. 5., May, 1901AD)

In 1910 AD, Nathan Schmidt was next to visit Kades and he
makes this comment on Trumbull's deceptive description of the place:
"On March 30th, 1881, H. Clay Trumbull came to 'Ain Kades from the
south. There can be no question that the picture
he afterwards drew of this "oasis of verdure and beauty" was
altogether too richly colored. Even when the greatest allowance is made for the season of the year,
the contrast to the desert of El Tih, the keen expectancy and the joy of
discovery, the later visitor cannot help asking in amazement what has
become of all the marble, the carpet of grass, the fruit-laden trees, the
warbling birds, and the "New England look" of the landscape, or
what would have happened if the eager explorer had been taken to Ain Kades
before the marvelous sight " of all this loveliness had burst upon
him. His learned and valuable treatise on Kadesh Barnea in part makes
amends for a manifest want of sobriety in the description of what is
supposed to be its modern site. (Kadesh
Barnea, Journal of Biblical Literature, Nathan Schmidt, Vol 29, no 1,
1910 AD, p69)

Nathan Schmidt noted that the water quality at kades was
good but not much else: "The water that was
brought up from the fountain for the evening meal was of an excellent
quality. ... Aside from the water, there is
nothing very impressive about 'Ain Kades. (Kadesh
Barnea, Nathan Schmidt, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol 29, no 1,
1910 AD, p69,71)

Schmidt wondered if Trumbull had mixed up Kades with
Qudeirat in his mind when he wrote his report as a way of explaining the
lavish description of Trumbull. This explanation fails because Trumbull's
account of Ein El Qedeis doesn't fit Qudeirat much better. "It is not
as easy as it has seemed to those influenced by Trumbull's descriptions
and the modern name to decide whether 'Ain Kades
is more likely to have been Kadesh Barnes than 'Ain Kderat. The
latter is the fountain par excellence in this region; it is El 'Ain. The
sheltered position, the broad stream of water, the comparatively luxuriant
vegetation, the impressive "tell," the well-constructed pool,
the traces of ancient buildings, clearly indicate the importance of this
place. It seems to me altogether probable that this is the site of the
city of Paran, the ? of Judith 1:9 and 5:14, the Byzantine Cadis and the
Kadesh Barnea of the Crusaders. It is not impossible that the stream
flowing down Wadi el 'Ain was once called Me Meribath Kadesh." (Kadesh
Barnea, Nathan Schmidt, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol 29, no 1,
1910 AD, p73)

In 1910 AD, Nathan Schmidt, after considering Weibeh,
Kades and Qudeirat, rejected them all and concluded that Kadesh was in
fact at Petra: In choosing the location of
Kadesh, Schmidt rejected Qudeirat in favor of Petra in 1910 the same way
that Stanley rejected Weibah in favor of Petra in 1856: "It seems to me even more probable that Petra was
the original scene of these stories. Here the great Deliverer (Cp.
my article "The Jerahmeel Theory and the Historic Importance of the
Negeb," Hibbert Journal, vi. 2 January, 1908, pp 339ff.)
performed the miracle of piercing the rock and sending the wonderful
stream through the Sik, and here his older brother Aaron died on the peak
of Mt. Hor. In earlier times the gulf of 'Akabah reached farther north
than it does to-day, and a passage from the eastern side over to El Tih
may not have been as easy as it is at present. Nomadic tribes pushing
northwest from the land of Midian no doubt found their way down into the
Negeb through the defiles of Mt. Seir (Jebel Sharra). The Idumaean clans
that camped around Moserah and Zin probably brought with them the
traditions of their heroes. Their way from Sinai-Horeb to Kadesh Barnea
and Mt. Halak is likely to have led them through the Valley of Moses and
put the reputed resting-place of Aaron in Petra." (Kadesh
Barnea, Nathan Schmidt, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol 29, no 1,
1910 AD, p75-76)

In 1914 Leonard Woolley and T. E. Lawrence visited Kades
and commented on the deception of Trumbull: "Mr. H. C. Trumbull, an
American, spent a single hour at the spring in
1882, and wrote round his visit a very large book. with fantastic
descriptions of the valley ... As a general comment we can only say that
this account is as minutely accurate in its measurements as it is
inaccurate in its descriptive matter. The valley of Ain Kadeis is
unusually naked, even among the valleys of the south country. " (The
Wilderness of Zin, C. Leonard Woolley and T. E. Lawrence, CH IV, Ain
Kadeis And Kossaima, 1914-1915 AD)

"The actual site of Kadesh-Barnea has long been a
subject of scholarly dispute. The earliest 19th century investigators, men
like Karl von Raumer and Edward Robinson, looked for Kadesh-Barnea in the
Aravah, the deep geomorphic rift extending from the southern end of the
Dead Sea to the Red Sea. Based on the reference in Numbers 20:16 to Kadesh
as being on the border of Edom and the fact that the Aravah was thought to
be the western border of Edom, various oases in the Aravah were proposed
as the site of Kadesh-Barnea. In the 1880s, Henry Clay Trumbull suggested
Ein-Qedeis, in the northern Sinai, as the site of Kadesh-Barnea. What
appeared to be the retention of the Biblical "Kadesh" in the
Arabic "Qedeis" was a forceful and appealing argument in favor
of Trumbull's identification. Moreover, Trumbull described Ein-Qedeis as a
luxuriant oasis which seemed to fit the Biblical description of the site.
Unfortunately, Trumbull's description of Ein-Qedeis was highly
romanticized. In fact, Ein-Qedeis is a shallow pool of water surrounded by
a desert wasteland. Ein-Qedeis could not have been a major ancient center
like Kadesh-Barnea." (Did
I Excavate Kadesh-Barnea? absence of Exodus remains poses problem,
Rudolph Cohen, 1981 AD)

The New Advent Catholic encyclopedia was probably the last
to say that Kadesh was located at Qedeis in 1917 AD: "A good deal of
controversy has existed concerning the site of Cades, no less than
eighteen places having been proposed. This may now be considered as
settled in favour of 'Ain Qadis or Gadis, discovered by J. Rowlands in
1842, fifty miles south of Bersabee. Its only serious rival, 'Ein
El-Weibeh, on the western edge of the Arabah, forty-five miles farther
east, which was advocated by Robinson and others, is now generally
abandoned. 'Ain Qadis ("Holy Well") preserves the name Cades
both in meaning and etymology, and best satisfies the scriptural
data." (New Advent Catholic encyclopedia, Cades, 1917 AD)

In 1882, after Henry Clay Trumbull's one hour visit to Qedeis
and choosing it as Kadesh Barnea, he traveled 6 km north to visit Ein
El-Qudeirat. Like his deceptive account of the greenery at Qedeis,
his account at Ein El-Qudeirat were also full of lies. He talked about
dense vegetation and a 60 foot wide river and a 14 foot waterfall at Ein
El-Qudeirat. Today, most of the vegetation is the result of modern
irrigation techniques and it still isn't as "lush" as Trumbull
described it. AYN EL-QADAYRAT DISCOVERED: The
signs of fertility in this spur were far greater than in the main wady.
Grass and shrubs and trees were in luxuriance, and the luxuriance increased
at every step as we pushed on. One tree, called by our Arabs a
" seyal " (or acacia), but not showing thorns like the acacias
of the lower desert, exceeded in size any tree of the sort we had ever
seen. Its trunk was double ; one stock being some six feet in girth ; the
other, four feet and a-half. The entire sweep of the branches was a
circumference of nearly two hundred and fifty feet, according to our
pacing of it. "With such trees as that in the desert, it were easy
enough to get the seyal, or shittim. wood, of suitable size for the boards
and bars of the tabernacle. Still the luxuriance of vegetation increased.
Then, as we proceeded, came the sound of flowing, and of foiling water. A water channel of fifteen to twenty yards in width,
its stream bordered with reeds or flags, showed itself at our feet between
the hills. We moved eastward along its southern border. Above the gurgling sound of the running stream, there
grew more distinct the rush of a torrent-fall. As we pressed toward
its source, the banks of the stream narrowed and rose, and we clambered
them, and found our way through dense shrubbery
until we reached the bank of the fountain-basin. There we looked down into
a pool some twelve to fourteen feet below us; into which a copious stream
rushed from out the hillside at the east, with a fall of seven or eight
feet. The hillside from which this stream poured was verdure-covered, and
the stream seemed to start out from it, at five or six feet below our
level. The dense vegetation prevented our seeing
whether the stream sprang directly out of an opening in the hillside, or
came down along a concealed channel from springs yet farther eastward;
but the appearance was of the former. Waving flags, four or five feet
high, bordered this pool, as they bordered the channel below it. Our
dragoman enthusiastically compared the fountain to that of Banias, away
northward, at the source of the Jordan. It was certainly a wonderful
fountain for the desert s border. Its name Ayn
el-Qadayrat the " Fountain of Omnipotence," or " Fountain
of God s Power," was not inappropriate, in view of its
impressiveness, bursting forth there so unexpectedly, as at the word of
Him who " turneth the wilderness into a standing water, and dry
ground into water springs." No wonder that this fountain was a
landmark in the boundary line of the possession, which had been promised
of God to his people, as " a land of brooks of water, of fountains
and depths that spring out of valleys and hills." Viewed merely as a desert-fountain, Ayn el-Qadayrat was
even more remarkable than Ayn Qadees ; although the hill-encircled wady
watered by the latter, was far more extensive than Wady Ayn el-Qadayrat;
and was suited to be a place of protected and permanent encampment, as the
latter could not be. Perhaps it ought to be mentioned, that the "date-palms " which Scetzen spoke of as
watered by this fountain, were not seen by us. Yet they may have
been elsewhere; or indeed, they may have existed in his day, although not
now remaining. There was a peculiar satisfaction
in looking at this remarkable fountain, when at last we had reached it. No
visit to it had been recorded by any traveler in modern times. Seetzcul
and Robinson, and Rowlands, and Bonar and Palmer, and others, had been
told of it, and had reported it accordingly; but no one of them claimed to
have seen it. In view of all that these travelers had said, and
after his own careful search for it, up and down the wady, Bartlett, (as
has already been mentioned) had come to the conclusion that no such fountain
existed that, in fact, Wady el-Ayn, the Wady of the Well, was a wady
without a well. To put our eyes on it, therefore, the very day of our
seeing Ayn Qadees, was enough to drive out of mind all thought of our
dangers and worry on the way to it. We congratulated one another all
around; and Muhammad Ahmad was promised anew that he should go into that
book" Silk Bazar," and all." (Kadesh-Barnea
Henry Clay Trumbull, 1884 AD)

In 1905 Nathaniel Schmidt visited Qudeirat and rejected it
as Kadesh and chose Petra instead. In 1981 AD, Rudolph Cohen
misrepresented Nathaniel Schmidt as the first one to identify that Ein
el-Qudeirat was Kadesh. In fact Schmidt considered Weibeh, Kades and
Qudeirat, rejected them all and concluded that Kadesh was at Petra: "It seems to me even more probable that Petra was
the original scene of these stories." (Kadesh
Barnea, Nathan Schmidt, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol 29, no 1,
1910 AD, p75-76) Cohen says: "In 1905, Nathaniel Schmidt first
identified Kadesh-Barnea as the modern site of Ein el-Qudeirat. Schmidt
marshalled his arguments: "The sheltered position, the broad stream
of water... Its strategic location on two important ancient routes, its
abundance of water and its correspondence with Biblical geography makes
this the most likely candidate; no other site offers a convincing
alternative. ... The springs of Ein el-Qudeirat are the richest and most
abundant in the Sinai; they water the largest oasis in northern
Sinai." (Did
I Excavate Kadesh-Barnea? absence of Exodus remains poses problem,
Rudolph Cohen)

In 1914, Woolley and Lawrence compared the two sites of Qedeis
and Qudeirat and decided that Kadesh Barnea was somewhere in the Quseima
district, most likely at Qudeirat, since it was the largest of four
springs: "Strategically the Kossaima district
agrees well with what we know of Kadesh-Barnea. ... These roads running out to north, south, east and west -
all directions in which journeys were planned or made from Kadesh-Barnea -
together with its abundance of water and wide stretch of tolerable soil,
distinguish the Kossaima plain from any other district in the Southern
Desert, and may well mark it out as the headquarters of the Israelites
during their forty years of discipline.(The
Wilderness of Zin, C. Leonard Woolley and T. E. Lawrence, CH IV, Ain
Kadeis And Kossaima, 1914-1915 AD)

Woolley and Lawrence knew that they would have to abandon
the traditional location of Mt. Hor beside Petra and chose a new location
of the burial place of Aaron, basically at random: "To choose today
out of the innumerable hills of the country one particular peak to be the
scene of Aaron's burial shows, perhaps, an uncatholic mind; but as long as
the tradition of Jebel Harun passes muster, so long the existence of
recognized roadways between the mountain and the
Kossaima plain must influence our judgment." (The
Wilderness of Zin, C. Leonard Woolley and T. E. Lawrence, CH IV, Ain
Kadeis And Kossaima, 1914-1915 AD)

Woolley and Lawrence published their book in 1916 AD in
which they chose Ein El-Qudeirat as Kadesh Barnea, and the entire world
jumped on board with them.

Woolley and Lawrence really had only superficial
information when they chose Qudeirat as Kadesh. They made many mistakes typical
of the science of archeology of the time. For example, at Tell el-Kheleifeh (ancient Elat)
"Glueck threw out most of the common
wheel-made pottery he excavated; he did not realize this common wheel-made
pottery was far more reliable for dating purposes than the handmade
pottery he saved.)" (Jezirat Faraun: Is This Solomon's
Seaport?, Alexander
Flinder, 1989 AD) This was 25 years after Woolley and Lawrence
excavated at Qudeirat. Who knows what errors they made?

It is interesting that Woolley and Lawrence wrongly
wondered if the fort at Qudeirat already existed when Moses arrived. Of
course, this was in 1916 AD and now we know that the remains at Quderat
were built some 400 years after Moses, by Solomon. Today, we know that Ein
El-Qudeirat, is not even Kadesh Barnea, so Moses was never even here:
"At a later date Moses, writing to the King of Edom, described Kadesh
as `a city in the uttermost of thy border' (Numbers xx, 16). The word
`city' is a vague one, and probably only means a settlement, perhaps a
district, like the modern Arabic beled which is used to mean town,
village, district, or country. In the former sense it might be used of
such hut-settlements as those of Muweilleh and Kossaima; but would most temptingly apply to the fortress of Ain Guderat
[Qudeirat], should we assume - we cannot prove it - that the fort was
already built when Moses came." (The
Wilderness of Zin, C. Leonard Woolley and T. E. Lawrence, CH IV, Ain
Kadeis And Kossaima, 1914-1915 AD)

Excavations at Qudeirat were carried out 1914-1915 AD by
Woolley and Lawrence. They published their finds in the book The
Wilderness of Zin. This book convinced the world that Qudeirat was in
fact Kadesh and so it so to the present time.

Shortly after 1916 AD, the world rejected Ein El Qedeis
for Kadesh. The new location for Kadesh was about 10 km north at Ein
el-Qudeirat after Woolley and Lawrence published their book. Qudeirat
has been the almost undisputed location for Kadesh Barnea from 1916 to the
present time. However Qudeirat simply cannot be Kadesh Barnea for a long
list of reasons discussed elsewhere.

Today Ein El-Qudeirat is still the location for Kadesh
Barnea in almost every Bible map produced. This is a grave mistake since
Kadesh Barnea is located transjordan, near or at Petra, right where Josephus
and Eusebius
in the Onomasticon said it was.

2005
AD - present: Petra area, eastern Arabah Valley, Transjordan

The Author seeks to restore the true exodus route that the
first century Christians believed: A crossing crossing point of the Red
Sea at the Straits of Tiran; a location for Mt. Sinai in Arabia (perhaps at
Lawz) and a transjordan location of Kadesh Barnea (the Petra area at Beidha,
5 km north of Petra).

This of course is not really a discovery, but more of a
restoration in harmony with the Bible and the most ancient history sources
combined with modern archeology.

It is my hope that the many errors in almost every map in
every Bible will be corrected to reflect true Bible geography.